Unipetrol Nigeria Plc V Edo State Board Of Internal Revenue (2006)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MUKHTAR, J.S.C. 

In the Mobile Revenue Court of Edo State sitting at Benin City, the following charge was framed against the appellant:

“Count 1: That Unipetrol Plc., Benin City, between January, 1993 to December, 1995 at Benin City within the jurisdiction of the Edo State Mobile Revenue Court, without lawful justification or excuse, failed to pay the sum of One million, two hundred and sixty two thousand, five hundred and seven Naira (N1,262,507.00) being outstanding PAYE Tax liabilities for the said period and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 51(2)(b) of the Income Tax Law,Cap. 71, Vol. III, Laws of Bendel State now applicable to Edo State.

Count II: That Unipetrol Plc., Benin City, between January, 1993 to December, 1995 at Benin City within the jurisdiction of the Edo State Mobile Revenue Court, without lawful justification or excuse, failed to pay the sum of Two hundred and forty-four thousand, one hundred and thirty-one Naira (N244,131.00) being outstanding withholding tax liabilities for the said period and thereby committed an offence contrary to section 51(2)(b) of the Income Tax Law, Cap. 71, Vol. III, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, 1976, now applicable to Edo State.”

A notice of preliminary objection was filed by learned counsel for the defendant, and the ground of the notice reads:

“That the pending charge against the defendant is incurably defective, incompetent, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”

In ruling on the preliminary objection, the learned trial Judge dismissed it as follows:

See also  Chief Jim Ifenyichukwu Nwobodo V. Chief Christian Chukwuma Onoh & Ors (1983) LLJR-SC

“The objection of the respondent’s counsel is incompetent and it is founded on inefficient research into the law and hastily brought. This should be discouraged. I am of the fair view that if counsel had been aware of Edict No. 1 of 1996 he would not have raised the preliminary objection. It has needlessly delayed the hearing. The preliminary objection is hereby dismissed.”

Dissatisfied with the dismissal, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal initially on a single ground of appeal, which reads thus:

“The learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the complainant could institute the pending criminal charge against the respondent in its name without the existence and/or authority of the Attorney-General of Edo State.

Particulars of Error

(i) Edo State (sic) of Internal Revenue has power to sue and be sued only.

(ii) Edo State had no Attorney-General at the time of the institution of the pending charge.

(iii) Pending charge is in the name of the complainant simpliciter.”

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *